“That path wasn't created by Bush. You make think otherwise and that's your choice. Terrorism is the road to WW3. The policy of 'ignore it and hopefully it will go away' is bad policy. That policy brought us 9-11-01. I don't want a policy of ignorance and/or appeasement.”
This is totally false. I’m not saying Bush created the scenario, that was done long ago, but his actions are escalating the violence. Terrorism didn’t begin for a random purpose. It began as a “poor man’s response” to the superior technology and weaponry of the West. Terrorism is essentially a guerilla war tactic.
You believe we have an enemy that we must fight and not appease. I would ask, how do you define this enemy? Are they human beings? Do they have souls? Are all human beings equal in the eyes of your god? Did they have mothers and fathers, possibly children of their own? Are they capable of learning and spiritual growth? Are they as human beings capable of experiencing emotions? Why do they feel the need to kill Americans? Are they possibly seeking revenge? If so, revenge for what? Or, as Bush claims, do they blindly hate us for our “freedom” and affluence? I don’t know about you, but I find it odd that the people in this country are not allowed to hear the words of Bin Laden. Is he just a cold-blooded killer? Or is he asking for certain demands to be met in order for the violence to stop? Does he feel wronged for past deeds by the U.S. and can this possibly be rectified? The vast majority of people here honestly won’t know because our government claims certain statements he may make might be a “secret code” to “activate” alleged terrorist cells here in the U.S. (Wonder why these hidden cells in the U.S. aren’t striking us constantly if they hate us so much?) If you’ve seen Fahrenheit 9/11, then you know that there is clear evidence that the Bush family had several business dealings with some of Bin Laden’s siblings. Don’t you think he has enough connections that he could find a way to open a dialogue if he really wanted to try?
Now, what we do have are the written words of Bin Laden from 1996 and what he says is this: he believes jihad is necessary because (1) American troops (and mentioned in particular female troops) are on sacred Islamic soil in Saudi Arabia. (2) the sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War were hurting the citizens and weakening the country IN PREPARATION FOR ANOTHER INVASION (that’s an interesting prediction). (3) And the support of Israel, who Bin Laden believes is persecuting the Palestinians.
I don’t know if you saw “Meet the Press” on 9/5/04, but Pat Buchanan stated these reasons for terrorism by Bin Laden. Buchanan said our policies were the reasons for the attack, not that “Bin Laden was sitting in a cave, stumbled across the Bill of Rights, and went bananas.” Newt Gingrich was also on the panel and was asked to respond and said basically “we can’t have Bin Laden dictating where we send our troops because America must stabilize the oil region, otherwise oil would cost 200 or 300 dollars a barrel.” That’s a fascinating admission, if you ask me. So, what Gingrich is saying is that these troops are essentially dying to keep the price of oil as cheap as possible. Now, Buchanan didn’t question him on that—I definitely would have. And I would argue that the price would not automatically go up as Gingrich claims if the U.S. is not in the region. I think the price would probably drop from current levels because terrorism against the U.S. would stop. Although there might be unrest and some of the regimes might be toppled by current terrorists (in particular the Saudi family)—they would just assume the fortune—already a vast amount of wealth—of the regimes so I don’t think they would see a need to raise prices (If you’ve been poor all your life and you stumble upon billions of dollars, are you happy with that or do you immediately desire more money?) Also, they would have no reason to raise prices in an attempt to economically hurt the U.S. because the U.S. wouldn’t be militarily influencing the region anymore.
So, concerning the U.S.’s support of Israel, another key reason for terrorism, I would first like to ask you if you believe Zionism, or that the land of that area was granted to the Jewish people by the god of the Bible, had anything to do with its selection as the Jewish state? If not, exactly why do you think this land was chosen? Also, do you think this area was the best choice and why or why not? Is there any other land or area that would satisfy you to serve as the Jewish state? And finally, do you believe a Jewish state is necessary when there is no single Christian state, no single Buddhist state and no single Muslim state?
I can see no other explanation for the choosing of Palestine as the Israeli state other than the fact that at least some influential Jewish people believe that a “god” gave them the land centuries ago and it should still belong to them. Here are some links that allude to Zionist or religious intentions in regards to the formation of the state of Israel:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm
http://www.levitt.com/essays/dh.html
http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq240.html
Just for the record, I’m not trying to say the Jewish people are the only group with those in positions of power or influence promoting some type of religious doctrine in government. It has happened with America too. In 1890, the convention of one of the major Christian churches in the U.S. stated that “the religious destiny of the world is lodged in the hands of the English speaking people. To the Anglo-Saxon race God seems to have committed the enterprise of the world’s salvation.” James H. King, an influential minister from New York, said the “most important lesson in the history of modern civilization is, that God is using the Anglo-Saxon people to conquer the world for Christ.” There are several other historical references alleging the “need” for the U.S. to conquer the world to spread the Christian religion. And with the Muslims, many of them despise all opposing religions and believe that the Islam must displace all other religions one day as the true faith.
But let’s go to the issue of the state of Israel—to the beginning. On the following link we see a brief overview of the origin of the state of Israel and also the fact that Arabs there were not happy with the United Nation’s partition plan and voted to reject it.
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/education/Israel_Palestine/establishment_Israel.htm
Also, if you’ll note the populations at the time, the Arabs were a clear majority. The majority isn’t always right, but common sense will tell you that challenging the majority will result in conflict whether they are right or wrong. To believe that the Jews would have a peaceful welcome in Palestine was wishful thinking on the part of the U.N. This does not justify violent actions on the part of the Arabs, but again, the laws of cause and effect cannot be ignored. The Arabs are unequivocally wrong to pursue violence as a means of retaliation, but it is clear that their rights were violated first.
In the late 40’s, the Palestinian people were overruled and their wishes were ignored by the U.N. To put oneself in their shoes, did the citizens in Palestine vote to elect any of the U.N. leaders who made this decision? Do you believe that a group such as the U.N. or any other political group has to right to make decisions that affect the lives of people if these same people are not allowed to vote them into (or out of) representative positions? Do you believe this is a fair way to decide issues? And if so, would you allow another political body which you or no one else in the U.S. voted for to come in and forcibly relocate you or force you to share land when it was against your desire to do so? I think a lot of people wouldn’t like this. I know I wouldn’t. I would feel like my rights had been violated.
The Palestinians warned the world that they would resist with violence if the U.N. plan was enacted, and that is exactly what they did. Were they morally wrong in choosing to initiate violence? Absolutely. However, were the Jewish people wrong to pursue the creation of a state in an area of people who did not desire the presence of such a state, who voted against it, and who had it forced upon them by a political body they did not elect? I definitely think so—and this becomes the cause. For the Jewish people to pursue such a plan and enter an area like this, surrounded by the followers of a religion of violence like Islam, just to in essence “reclaim” land that was allegedly granted to them by a fictitious “god” is either incredibly arrogant or incredibly short-sighted.
The real reason the Arabs resisted was not because of hatred of the Jews, but because they saw the encroachment as a repeat of the creation of the Crusader states. Castles built by Europeans in the “holy land” still stand as daily reminders of the holocaust that demolished an early, prosperous Islamic civilization. Some cultures have very long memories (unlike the short attention span of Americans). Two of the three main divisions of the PLO are named after battles fought during the Crusades. What the Jewish people have really done is blunder into a thousand year war between the Christian West and the Islamic world—and now the Muslims are focused on them.
I always hear from people defending Israel who have this underlying argument that the Jewish people must establish a state of their own to avoid persecution. One guy even once told me “The World would rather have Jews not defend themselves but rather walk sheepishly into fake showers.” My question to him was, who is PREVENTING the Jews from defending themselves in any given situation? And why didn’t he think the Jews did not defend themselves during WW2? Certainly, they had a CHOICE. We all have the choice to defend ourselves in any given situation. We may not even have weapons, but we do not have to “walk sheepishly” into any situation. We can choose to stand and fight, even with our bare hands if that’s all we have. I don’t see why people don’t blame the Jews for not standing up for themselves earlier in the 20th century, prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. Most importantly, they turned over their guns during the Nazi weapon confiscations. Possessing guns certainly would have increased the odds of the Jewish people being able to successfully defend themselves. If I and some friends of mine suspect we may be involved in a gunfight in the near future, and we willingly turn our guns over to those we suspect will be shooting at us, and then within a week they do indeed shoot and kill us, how much sympathy do we really deserve? Isn’t it stupid on our part to leave ourselves defenseless in that situation?
Take a look at these links. Are they all fabricating human rights violations by the Israelis? The second one is very interesting, as many of the writers are Jewish and live in Israel and yet still criticize the policies of the Israeli government.
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast5.html
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/contents/issue/tik0207.html
Take a look also at the following link:
http://www.phrmg.org
Do you think all the stories of human rights violations by the Israelis on this site are false? Do you believe these Palestinians have any legitimate grievances? Do you believe that Israeli children are more valuable than the Palestinian children that are dying in the conflict?
The Israelis may not have initiated the violence in 1948, but they now seem infected with “war fever” and have been committing atrocities of their own over the years in retaliation for Palestinian attacks. Many Israelis are now filled with bitterness, anger, and a desire for revenge (just to clarify, many Palestinians also suffer from these negative emotions also). Violence begets violence. And the Jewish people are facing an extremely violent adversary in the Arab world. I don’t believe the Arabs will EVER stop fighting. For the Israelis, is this really a wise war to wage? Personally, I would rather fight ANY group other than suicidal religious fanatics. To quote the Chinese general Sun Tzu, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself, but not the enemy, for every victory you will suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Also, “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” And in his chapter “Variation of Tactics” he goes on to warn “There are armies that must not be attacked, positions that must not be contested, commands of the sovereign that must not be obeyed. There are roads that must not be followed. Towns that must not be besieged.” Everyone should read his book “The Art of War” and ask yourself if the Israelis are following a wise strategy.
“You terrorist apologists make me ill.”
You moronic sheep make me ill. Are you a war loving Christian who ignores the death of innocent women and children in Iraq? Are you full of desire for revenge? What happened to "love thy enemy"? You hypocrites make me sick as well.
“How can you sit there and say that the attacks on 9-11-01 which killed thousands of innocents is justified.”
I’m not saying the use of force by the terrorists was justified. All I’m saying is that there is a reason behind their actions, so I understand why the retaliation occurred. But, don’t get me wrong, I have many criticisms of the Islamic world. Concerning Muslims in general, Islam is without question the most barbaric of the major religions, in my opinion. Islam encourages violence against other religions and even against its own members if they disobey its teachings. For more details see:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473
Osama Bin Laden is a misguided fool. He wrongly sees violence as a legitimate means to effect political change and is devoted to the more fatalistic elements of Islam. As for Yassir Arafat, he is a deceptive fraud and only seeks more social status for himself at the expense of his people. I would love to see him “dethroned”, stripped of all his wealth, and exiled to the South Pole. I personally believe he had more to do with the planning of 9/11 than either Hussein or Bin Laden. But, I do not judge the Arabs, or any group of people, solely by their leaders. One reason would be that I certainly don’t want someone judging me by the actions of George Bush or Bill Clinton. Many of the Palestinians can’t stand Arafat. Just as many Americans question and condemn the policies of our government.
The bottom line is, if America will withdraw its troops from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel either directly or through the sale of weapons, we won’t suffer any more terrorist attacks. And if the Jewish people will dissolve the state of Israel and leave the area, that would satisfy the Arabs and soon they would forget about the rest of the world and would most likely begin warring against each other, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and other ethnic clans. It would of course be best if they could live in peace, but better for them to struggle against each other internally for now than to make war on the rest of the world.
As for the Chechens making terrorist attacks against the Russians and purposely targeting innocents, look to the past to understand:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106287/
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1080
There is always an explanation in the past. The problem is people forget the past so they are doomed to repeat it.